A child whose parents would not or could not look after him, who had been dependent in the past on the local authority and was now once again dependent on their care, was an almost classic fit for Children Act 1989, s 20. The local authority' refusal to accommodate the child under s 20, based on its conclusion that accommodation could be provided under s 17, not least because the child had expressed a wish not to be in care, was a failure to acknowledge the duty the authority owed the child under s 20. The difficulties that the claimant presented were to some extent an illustration of why more extensive, rather than less extensive, provisions were desirable.